I read this. It was difficult because it was so obviously flawed it was almost laughable. Of course you can call this fake news or another example of the ignorance of the experts who are actually trained in epidemiology. The transmission of the virus is largely caused by the vapor we expel when we breathe or talk. They have pretty come to the conclusion that it is rarely spread by us touching something and then touching our mouths eyes etc. However this article is advocating for Bidet's. When we breath or talk we expel liquid particles capable of being suspended in the air for approximately 6 feet, That is why masks are recommended. That is why we social distance. The carbon dioxide, nitrogen and oxygen we exhale will not make you sick. The water we expectorate will. A mask of cloth or paper will stop this. It is counter intuitive to believe otherwise. That is all we had to do to have a football season or get back to some sort of normalcy. The people who could not do it are the reason those things are in jeopardy.
Dr. Fauci Keeps Warning, Maybe No Football This Year
- Thread starter Fear the Spear
- Start date
- Status
Did you read what I wrote? I'll extract and make it bold below for your convenience.
"To be clear, although I disagree with the premise / science of wearing masks, I do not dismiss wearing them when/where socially mandated."
With that said, maybe we shouldn't be trying to slow the spread anymore. Maybe it would be better to transmit it to healthy people during the summer time to obtain herd immunity prior to the fall/winter where viruses tend to be much more potent, all WHILE protecting the vulnerable.
GO NOLES!!!
The constant spin is too much, I've all but stopped reading warchant message boards.
This is the reason to open the beaches to the young. FSU football players should also partake . And let's not forget. Jello shots out of the belly buttons ARE optional.
Ahhhhh your comments aged as well as Covid lol. Still no mask, no vax, no positive Covid test. Xoxo
Interesting to read through this thread again ... and the paranoia and misinformation contained therein. I shouldn't be too hard on them ... they were inundated with "expert" opinion.
Thankfully, we now know that the "Covid jab" did not keep people from getting Covid, did not keep them from spreading Covid, and that subsequent jabs made/make people more likely to get Covid. Information is also slowly leaking out about the unprecedented harms caused by the Covid jab. And the risk/reward for people 30 and under was absurdly poor. For teens and younger the risks were criminally poor. In short, it was neither "safe nor effective." It is also extremely likely there will be long term harms from the Covid jab.
The one thing the jab did apparently do was to reduce deaths in those with one or more co-morbidities, particularly in the 70 years and older age bracket. It is unclear how much it "reduced hospitalizations," since standard care for Covid all over the country was no care whatsoever until a patient required an ER visit or hospitalization. This lack of care policy likely caused many, many unnecessary hospitalizations and deaths, especially "death by respirator."
The one thing the jab did apparently do was to reduce deaths in those with one or more co-morbidities, particularly in the 70 years and older age bracket. It is unclear how much it "reduced hospitalizations," since standard care for Covid all over the country was no care whatsoever until a patient required an ER visit or hospitalization. This lack of care policy likely caused many, many unnecessary hospitalizations and deaths, especially "death by respirator."
No covid( that I know of), no jab, no boosters
My blood is high test baby
Disclaimer: I am Not mocking those that did take the jab and the many boosters since!
And I still cannot believe how many I see wearing masks while driving cars alone!
And I do feel sadness thinking of loved ones who died alone!
My blood is high test baby
Disclaimer: I am Not mocking those that did take the jab and the many boosters since!
And I still cannot believe how many I see wearing masks while driving cars alone!
And I do feel sadness thinking of loved ones who died alone!
Can you please provide documentation for this claim? I would love to learn more about this.
Sure. Here's just one article. Of course, the CDC and many others are furiously arguing that the numbers 'really' mean something else - just as they argued the importance of masking and vaccinating children.
Note: My post was a public service. I won't be doing any back and forth. I'm over the whole Covid thing.
Coronavirus update: Getting a booster may increase chance of breakthrough infection, study finds
COVID-19 tally as compiled by Johns Hopkins University. (Previous numbers in parentheses.)Total U.S. confirmed cases: 84
www.consumeraffairs.com
Boosted Americans at risk of breakthrough cases
Government health officials have urged all eligible Americans who are vaccinated against COVID-19 to get a booster shot. But a new study appears to suggest that people who get the booster shot are more likely to suffer a “breakthrough” coronavirus infection.The federal study found that the rate of breakthrough COVID-19 infections in April was worse in boosted Americans when compared to those who were only fully vaccinated. At the same time, the rates of deaths and hospitalizations remained lowest among people who had been boosted.
In an interview with CBS News, John Moore, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Weill Cornell Medical College, said the Omicron variant and its subvariants seem to be able to easily break through antibody protection and cause infections. However, these cases are mostly mild among the boosted population
Found a better article. Here it is:
Study Reveals 23 Percent Lower COVID Risk in Those ‘Not Up-to-Date’ With Vaccinations
https://www.theepochtimes.com/healt...9llHwYWncLVPnUtswhlzgWjk7Ip3IOOtqKMLW47+IpIU=
COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization turned negative over time, according to U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data presented on June 15.
The effectiveness against hospitalization plummeted to negative 8 percent for people who received one of the old COVID-19 vaccines, according to data from a CDC-run hospital network.
A dose of one of the updated bivalent vaccines moved the protection above zero, to 29 percent, but the protection fell back to negative 8 percent beyond 89 days, the data show.
The protection estimates were for adults without a compromised immune system from Jan. 23 to May 24, when the XBB strain was dominant in the United States. The data came from people hospitalized at one of 25 hospitals across 20 states that are part of the Investigating Respiratory Viruses in the Acutely Ill network. Both cases and controls were hospitalized with COVID-like illness but the cases tested positive for COVID-19 and the controls tested negative for COVID-19.
“We see a pattern of waning against hospitalization,” Dr. Ruth Link-Gelles of the CDC said while presenting the data to a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) panel as they consider updating the composition of the vaccines.
Link-Gelles didn’t specifically comment on how the effectiveness turned negative but noted the wide confidence intervals for some of the effectiveness estimates.
The bivalent vaccines, made by Moderna and Pfizer, were introduced in the fall of 2022 with the hopes of improving protection against hospitalization and death after the old vaccines proved increasingly incapable of providing sustained shielding.
Dr. Robert Malone, who helped invent the messenger RNA technology utilized by the vaccine companies in their vaccines, said that the negative effectiveness is consistent with prior data such as a study from the Cleveland Clinic that found each successive vaccine dose increased the risk of infection.
Other papers have also estimated that protection against infection turns negative over time. Some datasets have indicated that vaccinated people were at higher risk of hospitalization, long seen as a surrogate for severe disease.
Researchers in one recent paper said that repeated vaccination—some Americans have received a half-dozen COVID-19 shots in under three years—weakens immune systems, potentially making people susceptible to life-threatening conditions such as cancer.
The estimates were negative even after CDC officials made adjustments for factors such as age, sex, and ethnicity. The median time since the last dose for the people who only received one or more doses of an old vaccine was 464 days. For the group who received a bivalent vaccine but saw effectiveness turn negative, the median time was 137 days.
Information on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness presented by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on June 15, 2023. (CDC via The Epoch Times)
Among adults deemed immunocompetent after XBB became dominant, the protection from the old vaccines against hospitalization was measured at 9 percent in the CDC’s VISION network. A shot of a bivalent vaccine increased protection to 51 percent, but the shielding plunged to 20 percent 90 to 179 days after the shot.
From September 2022 to May 2023, immunocompromised adults in the same network who only received an old vaccine had just 3 percent protection against hospitalization.
A bivalent shot increased the protection to 39 percent, although the shielding was reduced to 11 percent beyond 119 days.
VISION includes sites across 11 states, including Kaiser Permanente Northern California and Columbia University in New York.
Under half of each age group in the United States has received a bivalent dose, including 43 percent of those age 65 and older and 0.6 percent of 2- to 4-year-olds.
The CDC didn’t present data on the effectiveness against infection.
XBB became dominant in the United States in January, displacing BA.5 and its subvariants. The bivalents contain a BA.4/BA.5 component in addition to the Wuhan component. The FDA plans to update the vaccines to target XBB and its sublineages for a renewed vaccine campaign in late 2023 and early 2024.
“We’re concerned that we may have another wave of COVID-19 during the time when the virus has further evolved, immunity of the population has waned further, and we move indoors for wintertime,” Dr. Peter Marks, an FDA official, said during the meeting.
Protection against critical illness from a bivalent was 58 percent initially and only dropped to 48 percent, according to data from VISION during XBB’s predominance.
There weren’t enough critical cases in the Investigating Respiratory Viruses in the Acutely Ill network to provide estimates of protection against critical illness, Link-Gelles said.
She said that patterns of waning with the bivalent vaccines “have been very similar to what we knew from the monovalent vaccine” and that U.S. officials don’t make vaccine policy decisions “based solely on vaccine effectiveness data.”
Limitations of the data include the high levels of prior infection, or natural immunity, and potential differences between unvaccinated and vaccinated people, officials said.
Study Reveals 23 Percent Lower COVID Risk in Those ‘Not Up-to-Date’ With Vaccinations
https://www.theepochtimes.com/healt...9llHwYWncLVPnUtswhlzgWjk7Ip3IOOtqKMLW47+IpIU=
COVID-Vaccinated More Likely to Be Hospitalized: CDC Data
Zachary Stieber 6/15/23COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization turned negative over time, according to U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data presented on June 15.
The effectiveness against hospitalization plummeted to negative 8 percent for people who received one of the old COVID-19 vaccines, according to data from a CDC-run hospital network.
A dose of one of the updated bivalent vaccines moved the protection above zero, to 29 percent, but the protection fell back to negative 8 percent beyond 89 days, the data show.
The protection estimates were for adults without a compromised immune system from Jan. 23 to May 24, when the XBB strain was dominant in the United States. The data came from people hospitalized at one of 25 hospitals across 20 states that are part of the Investigating Respiratory Viruses in the Acutely Ill network. Both cases and controls were hospitalized with COVID-like illness but the cases tested positive for COVID-19 and the controls tested negative for COVID-19.
“We see a pattern of waning against hospitalization,” Dr. Ruth Link-Gelles of the CDC said while presenting the data to a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) panel as they consider updating the composition of the vaccines.
Link-Gelles didn’t specifically comment on how the effectiveness turned negative but noted the wide confidence intervals for some of the effectiveness estimates.
The bivalent vaccines, made by Moderna and Pfizer, were introduced in the fall of 2022 with the hopes of improving protection against hospitalization and death after the old vaccines proved increasingly incapable of providing sustained shielding.
Dr. Robert Malone, who helped invent the messenger RNA technology utilized by the vaccine companies in their vaccines, said that the negative effectiveness is consistent with prior data such as a study from the Cleveland Clinic that found each successive vaccine dose increased the risk of infection.
Other papers have also estimated that protection against infection turns negative over time. Some datasets have indicated that vaccinated people were at higher risk of hospitalization, long seen as a surrogate for severe disease.
Researchers in one recent paper said that repeated vaccination—some Americans have received a half-dozen COVID-19 shots in under three years—weakens immune systems, potentially making people susceptible to life-threatening conditions such as cancer.
The estimates were negative even after CDC officials made adjustments for factors such as age, sex, and ethnicity. The median time since the last dose for the people who only received one or more doses of an old vaccine was 464 days. For the group who received a bivalent vaccine but saw effectiveness turn negative, the median time was 137 days.
Information on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness presented by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on June 15, 2023. (CDC via The Epoch Times)Other Data
Data from another network found that protection neared zero over time.Among adults deemed immunocompetent after XBB became dominant, the protection from the old vaccines against hospitalization was measured at 9 percent in the CDC’s VISION network. A shot of a bivalent vaccine increased protection to 51 percent, but the shielding plunged to 20 percent 90 to 179 days after the shot.
From September 2022 to May 2023, immunocompromised adults in the same network who only received an old vaccine had just 3 percent protection against hospitalization.
A bivalent shot increased the protection to 39 percent, although the shielding was reduced to 11 percent beyond 119 days.
VISION includes sites across 11 states, including Kaiser Permanente Northern California and Columbia University in New York.
Under half of each age group in the United States has received a bivalent dose, including 43 percent of those age 65 and older and 0.6 percent of 2- to 4-year-olds.
The CDC didn’t present data on the effectiveness against infection.
XBB became dominant in the United States in January, displacing BA.5 and its subvariants. The bivalents contain a BA.4/BA.5 component in addition to the Wuhan component. The FDA plans to update the vaccines to target XBB and its sublineages for a renewed vaccine campaign in late 2023 and early 2024.
“We’re concerned that we may have another wave of COVID-19 during the time when the virus has further evolved, immunity of the population has waned further, and we move indoors for wintertime,” Dr. Peter Marks, an FDA official, said during the meeting.
Turn to ‘Critical Illness’
Officials have increasingly been focusing on protection against so-called critical illness, or intensive care unit admission or death, as protection against hospitalization drops lower and lower.Protection against critical illness from a bivalent was 58 percent initially and only dropped to 48 percent, according to data from VISION during XBB’s predominance.
There weren’t enough critical cases in the Investigating Respiratory Viruses in the Acutely Ill network to provide estimates of protection against critical illness, Link-Gelles said.
She said that patterns of waning with the bivalent vaccines “have been very similar to what we knew from the monovalent vaccine” and that U.S. officials don’t make vaccine policy decisions “based solely on vaccine effectiveness data.”
Limitations of the data include the high levels of prior infection, or natural immunity, and potential differences between unvaccinated and vaccinated people, officials said.
20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing isn’t it? Beating up people for what they decided in 2020 with data gathered in 2023 strikes me as a bit disingenuous.Found a better article. Here it is:
Study Reveals 23 Percent Lower COVID Risk in Those ‘Not Up-to-Date’ With Vaccinations
https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/covid-vaccinated-more-likely-to-be-hospitalized-cdc-data_5335428.html?utm_source=morningbriefnoe&src_src=morningbriefnoe&utm_campaign=mb-2023-06-18&src_cmp=mb-2023-06-18&utm_medium=email&est=CqB9IYIkTpMAIkFzM/z9llHwYWncLVPnUtswhlzgWjk7Ip3IOOtqKMLW47+IpIU=
COVID-Vaccinated More Likely to Be Hospitalized: CDC Data
Zachary Stieber 6/15/23
COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization turned negative over time, according to U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data presented on June 15.
The effectiveness against hospitalization plummeted to negative 8 percent for people who received one of the old COVID-19 vaccines, according to data from a CDC-run hospital network.
A dose of one of the updated bivalent vaccines moved the protection above zero, to 29 percent, but the protection fell back to negative 8 percent beyond 89 days, the data show.
The protection estimates were for adults without a compromised immune system from Jan. 23 to May 24, when the XBB strain was dominant in the United States. The data came from people hospitalized at one of 25 hospitals across 20 states that are part of the Investigating Respiratory Viruses in the Acutely Ill network. Both cases and controls were hospitalized with COVID-like illness but the cases tested positive for COVID-19 and the controls tested negative for COVID-19.
“We see a pattern of waning against hospitalization,” Dr. Ruth Link-Gelles of the CDC said while presenting the data to a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) panel as they consider updating the composition of the vaccines.
Link-Gelles didn’t specifically comment on how the effectiveness turned negative but noted the wide confidence intervals for some of the effectiveness estimates.
The bivalent vaccines, made by Moderna and Pfizer, were introduced in the fall of 2022 with the hopes of improving protection against hospitalization and death after the old vaccines proved increasingly incapable of providing sustained shielding.
Dr. Robert Malone, who helped invent the messenger RNA technology utilized by the vaccine companies in their vaccines, said that the negative effectiveness is consistent with prior data such as a study from the Cleveland Clinic that found each successive vaccine dose increased the risk of infection.
Other papers have also estimated that protection against infection turns negative over time. Some datasets have indicated that vaccinated people were at higher risk of hospitalization, long seen as a surrogate for severe disease.
Researchers in one recent paper said that repeated vaccination—some Americans have received a half-dozen COVID-19 shots in under three years—weakens immune systems, potentially making people susceptible to life-threatening conditions such as cancer.
The estimates were negative even after CDC officials made adjustments for factors such as age, sex, and ethnicity. The median time since the last dose for the people who only received one or more doses of an old vaccine was 464 days. For the group who received a bivalent vaccine but saw effectiveness turn negative, the median time was 137 days.
Other Data
Data from another network found that protection neared zero over time.
Among adults deemed immunocompetent after XBB became dominant, the protection from the old vaccines against hospitalization was measured at 9 percent in the CDC’s VISION network. A shot of a bivalent vaccine increased protection to 51 percent, but the shielding plunged to 20 percent 90 to 179 days after the shot.
From September 2022 to May 2023, immunocompromised adults in the same network who only received an old vaccine had just 3 percent protection against hospitalization.
A bivalent shot increased the protection to 39 percent, although the shielding was reduced to 11 percent beyond 119 days.
VISION includes sites across 11 states, including Kaiser Permanente Northern California and Columbia University in New York.
Under half of each age group in the United States has received a bivalent dose, including 43 percent of those age 65 and older and 0.6 percent of 2- to 4-year-olds.
The CDC didn’t present data on the effectiveness against infection.
XBB became dominant in the United States in January, displacing BA.5 and its subvariants. The bivalents contain a BA.4/BA.5 component in addition to the Wuhan component. The FDA plans to update the vaccines to target XBB and its sublineages for a renewed vaccine campaign in late 2023 and early 2024.
“We’re concerned that we may have another wave of COVID-19 during the time when the virus has further evolved, immunity of the population has waned further, and we move indoors for wintertime,” Dr. Peter Marks, an FDA official, said during the meeting.
Turn to ‘Critical Illness’
Officials have increasingly been focusing on protection against so-called critical illness, or intensive care unit admission or death, as protection against hospitalization drops lower and lower.
Protection against critical illness from a bivalent was 58 percent initially and only dropped to 48 percent, according to data from VISION during XBB’s predominance.
There weren’t enough critical cases in the Investigating Respiratory Viruses in the Acutely Ill network to provide estimates of protection against critical illness, Link-Gelles said.
She said that patterns of waning with the bivalent vaccines “have been very similar to what we knew from the monovalent vaccine” and that U.S. officials don’t make vaccine policy decisions “based solely on vaccine effectiveness data.”
Limitations of the data include the high levels of prior infection, or natural immunity, and potential differences between unvaccinated and vaccinated people, officials said.
If only NIH and CDC had made much better use of all the epidemiologists at The Epoch Times and their decades of expert training and data mastery and predictive acumen, they could have made such better decisions!
Nonsense ... the arguments were being made in 2020 and results were simply being confirmed in studies over the past year. Meanwhile, they were the ones decried and "beaten up." Talk about being disingenous!
“People who confuse brains and luck can get in a whole lot of trouble.” Conrad Hunter North Dallas Forty.
An argument is not the same thing as a policy. The policy that needs to be made on the spot doesn’t have 3 years to be confirmed as a long term study does when people are dying. Bear in mind that the former guy said it was 15 cases going to zero, it’ll disappear on its own and we’re right around the corner. MANY listened to that. Some of them ended up in the hospital begging for ivermectin. (Another beauty). Over a million deaths later and we still have people preaching against the caution that was taken.
CDC data plus the Cleveland Clinic study. The Times simply wrote the article.
The fact that you think just anybody can interpret complex scientific study data and draw conclusions just as wisely and properly as anybody else kinda explains why you’d gravitate towards The Epoch Times for your Covid intel. Good luck with that.
This thread is arguing for or against the government's policy, not making policy. ... And when nearly every medical authority from every government reaches the exact same conclusion, we should have achieved the most decisive victory in the history of science ... except we did not. The long term physical, psychological and social effects of lockdowns, vaccines, mask mandates, school closings, social ostracism are still unknown. .... Oh, and there was that pandemic of the unvaccinated and the winter of death that was famously promulgated in late 2021.
Last edited:
It would probably benefit you to spend significantly more time learning about Correlation vs Causation, as well as the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
Best of luck.
Cleveland Clinic Study Did Not Show Vaccines Increase COVID-19 Risk - FactCheck.org
Numerous studies have found that additional COVID-19 shots are generally associated with extra protection against the coronavirus. Many people on social media, however, have shared a preliminary finding from a Cleveland Clinic study and misrepresented it as proving that getting more doses...
www.factcheck.org
"Observational studies like the Cleveland Clinic one can turn up associations between things, but it can be difficult to assess what caused these patterns.It would probably benefit you to spend significantly more time learning about Correlation vs Causation, as well as the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
Best of luck.
Cleveland Clinic Study Did Not Show Vaccines Increase COVID-19 Risk - FactCheck.org
Numerous studies have found that additional COVID-19 shots are generally associated with extra protection against the coronavirus. Many people on social media, however, have shared a preliminary finding from a Cleveland Clinic study and misrepresented it as proving that getting more doses...
Shrestha said the finding in his study on prior doses and infection risk “should certainly give us some pause.” But he also said that “a study like this, one study, is not going to prove any cause-effect relationship.” The goal in presenting the findings, he said, was to prompt other researchers to also look at the relationship between past doses and infection risk."
Observational studies can not give causal results. Undergraduates who take a statistical methods class would be asked that as a test question, probably on the first test (I did).
At the same time many countries have stopped giving vaccinations for Covid as a matter of course. Meaning if one has a specific comorbidity or is really old they can ask for one. That decision is based on both lack of efficacy they see in their data as well as the cost-benefit ratio which demonstrates more harm than help since Omicron in multiple sub groups. As it states in the article the first Covid vaccine series has demonstrated lower hospitalization and death among the elderly and immune suppressed. I will add there was no death and little hospitalization among the healthy sub 40 population around the world.
None of which supports Buckeye’s definitive and definitively false statement that “Thankfully, we now know that the "Covid jab" did not keep people from getting Covid, did not keep them from spreading Covid, and that subsequent jabs made/make people more likely to get Covid. “
We “now know” only how susceptible many people are to tribal confirmation bias.
Yet you and other members of the sports message board antivax brain trust cheered it on and gave it your thumbs up of approval.
Scientific rigor, basic statistical understanding, public health and all that be damned. All opinions are equally valid lol.
Carry on.
Unfortunately, the converse arguments were made by Fauci and Biden during the pandemic stating with all matter of fact that the "Covid jab" would prevent the spread and keep people from getting covid. Remember "the pandemic of the unvaccinated" for pete's sake.
As more time passes, it has become quite clear that many of the public health determinations were made to conceal the US part in paying for the research at the lab which caused the outbreak.
Had everyone (China, WHO, NIH, CDC, etc) been honest from the beginning with the cause then this pandemic might not have become one in the first place.
It is very clear why many people in America and around the world no longer BLINDLY trust scientific rigor and public health.
GO NOLES!!!
Since it has become quite clear to you and there are supposedly many, can you please give several examples of the public health determinations that were made to conceal the US part in paying for the research at the lab which caused the outbreak?
It was caused from people eating Pangolins bought at a wet market in Wuhan China right?
It’s amazing that despite how much time and $$$ and energy have been spent for years now with actual scientists around the world trying to track down the true origins of Covid 19, and with any findings and conclusions still hotly debated and still unsettled, and any official US agency opinions about its origins still caveated with “Low confidence” or at best “moderate confidence” warnings, all they really needed to do was to ask some Trumpers on a sports message board.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2305081
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/scienc...inks-pandemics-beginning-to-animals-not-a-labhttps://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2305081
https://www.nytimes.com/article/covid-origin-lab-leak-china.html
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2305081
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/scienc...inks-pandemics-beginning-to-animals-not-a-labhttps://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2305081
https://www.nytimes.com/article/covid-origin-lab-leak-china.html
No one can find the animal that gave people covid-19
Here’s your guide to the WHO-China search for the origins of the coronavirus.
U.S. government agencies may have been double billed for projects in Wuhan, China, records indicate; probe launched
The U.S. government may have made duplicate payments for projects at labs in Wuhan, China, through the NIH and USAID, according to records reviewed by CBS News.
www.cbsnews.com
The best thing to do would be discount what all the "Trumpers" opinions are and just go along with what the Pro Covid crowd says instead. That's way better and you don't have to hear opposing viewpoints or continually delete threads you don't like.
Edit: Yes these articles are older but this is why people see things differently and have different views. There still isn't one definitive answer as to why, where and how. People see grant mismanagement and GOF research and then don't believe what they are told.
Last edited:
Here's a start. https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Letter-Re.-Feb-1-Emails-011122.pdf
Also, with China / WHO / NIH all reluctant to cooperate in investigating there probably will not be 100% consensus on this outbreak. I think about 25 - 30% of Americans still trust Fauci at this point in time, which is not where you want your top scientist to be.
GO NOLES!!!
Again, I did not say anything that would lead to anyone to say I was cheerleading anything. In fact, I was supporting your statement vis a vis causation/correlation. But..........carry on.
FYI, Here is an example of what we are seeing about Government officials and the vaccine.
From Sensible Medicine: (These are MDs/PHDs that do real research and get published in top medical journals) Well worth following.
Rochelle Walensky’s Report Card on Women’s Health
The Agency did exactly what big Pharma wanted, using groupthink instead of insisting on data for their recommendations. Will incoming CDC director Mandy Cohen be different?
open.substack.com
FYI, Here is an example of what we are seeing about Government officials and the vaccine.
From Sensible Medicine: (These are MDs/PHDs that do real research and get published in top medical journals) Well worth following.
Rochelle Walensky’s Report Card on Women’s Health
The Agency did exactly what big Pharma wanted, using groupthink instead of insisting on data for their recommendations. Will incoming CDC director Mandy Cohen be different?
It's disgusting to read how the CDC/FDA and Federal Government blindly recommended the safeness of the vaccine without any research to validate.
From the article "Dr. Joseph Fraimanin the journal Vaccine identified the rate of “serious adverse events” after the Covid vaccine to be 1 in 662 doses."
In October of last year there had been nearly 13 billion shots given per the website below" https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/covid-vaccine-tracker-global-distribution/
Some quick napkin math 13B x 1/662 = 19.6 million "serious adverse events". Seeing as the largest criminal fine in the history of the world was paid by the company ($2.9B by Pfizer) who developed one of the main vaccines makes me pause further.
Another interesting point in this article, warning labels required abroad on both the Pfizer / Mderna products about adverse side affects are not required here in the US.... wonder why? Lobbyist for Big Pharma in the pockets of US decision makers?
Anyhow, thanks for posting.
GO NOLES!!!
Here we go! I’m sorry Sensible Medicine looks like one of these open access things that has some serious issues with regard to peer review and fact checking. Are there some JAMA studies in our future? I feel a quack attack coming on😉. Oh, and define “serious adverse effects”. Are these people dying? I knew 2 of the 1.1 million who died from the disease. Odd that I don’t know ANY of these 19.6 million, plus or minus, that are experiencing these effects.
- Status
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Softball FSU honors seniors, sweeps UNC, picks up 14th straight win
- Latest: Bob Ferrante
-
